tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN April 12, 2016 2:30pm-4:31pm EDT
mosquitos are that are potentially of concern. they are also testing for resistance. the human surveillance. we are seeing in multiple parts of the island. it may be that the cases we are seeing reported are just a small percentage because we think some people can be asymptomatic and the only people being tested right now are people who come in with symptoms. we are seeing it increasing across the island and we are worried as it gets warmer it will be islandwide. dr. fauci: i can't imagine we are not going to be given the money when we reach the point when every time we come in front of you we tell you things that are more serious. if we reach the point where the stopgap money runs out, again, hopefully that will never happen, but we would have to start raiding other accounts. and very important research on other diseases is going to suffer. and suffer badly.
i just almost can't imagine that would happen because as we keep talking more, we just spoke to you about the very interesting issue that we are learning. again, i'm not an alarmist, and most of you know me know i'm no. the more we learn about the neurological aspects, the more we look around and say this is serious. just in the last couple weeks, we know not only do you have the case of acute myelitis. enself lie turks and this new -- encephalitis and this new thing. we need more cases to show it's really associated. adem, which is a multiple sker rowcies-type involvement in the brain. thankfully it tends to resolve. every time we look, we see more and more. in the contesks your question, i can't imagine as we learn more and more things that are troublesome that all of a sudden we are not going to get the money. we do have to get it.
>> how did this seem catch us so by surprise? dr. fauci: it caught us by surprise not in the sense we should have known because for seengsly since the virus was first recognized in 1947 and the first human cases were 1952, it was a relatively inconsequential virus in the sense of rather mild illness, virtually no mortality. no hints or signals of other things that we are seeing now. for example, the guillain-barre. we don't have all the answers to this when it then had its first outbreak and the first outbreak was in the islands, that's when things started to explode. we still didn't get all the information. only when it hit a vulnerable big population with a lot of mosquitos with people who had never been exposed to this before did we then start seeing the unfolding of this scenario
that every week, every month tends to surprise us even more. but the initial part of it, there was really no reason to be very suspicious that this would be bad. it was one of those virus that is just gave a mild illness. >> with $1.9 billion, house chairman rogers said that -- did they plan to continue to monitor this and fund it as needed? why is that approach not appropriate for this virus? why do you need that money up front? that's a big bulk of money versus as it progresses and goes forward? when is it going to be too late? when you start to see the numbers swell. dr. schuchat: we haven't been waiting for the money to act because this is so serious. we have been surging our laboratory testing, for instance, there is a big backlog on that laboratory testing to scale up takes time. so knowing that resources are
coming helps with the scale up. there are a lot of commercial partners that are needed for that scale up. will they actually help without knowing resources are coming? vektor control, we have it enough money but that's expensive. the mosquito control efforts. as i said, we are learning that not all the chemicals or pesticides out there will work. there are multiyear studies that are going to be needed for these babies because we really don't know whether a child that looks healthy at birth will not have the effect of the zika virus. so there's longer term studies that are going to be needed. what i say is people are acting intentionively right now but that we can't -- if additional resources aren't coming, we won't be able to commit to the long-term work that's needed. the other thing is the places that the resources were taken from were areas where important work was going on. i think we are quite vulnerable if we are not able to meet the commitments on the global health security or ebola
response and recovery. dr. fauci: ditto what anne said. something i mentioned to this group the last time we were here that we have a very important partnership with pharmaceutical companies. if they don't purr receive us -- perceive us as a reliable partner, they tend to back off a bit. that would be the worst thing because we won't be able to develop these counter measures completely on our own. we need to partner with them. they would get mistrustful. trust us, we'll give you the money later. that doesn't work in industry. >> are you soog any hesitation from industry partners? dr. fauci: the answer is thankfully not yet. but i have considerable experience as some of you may have remembered back in the time when we were building counter measures for biodefense en we were trying to get vaccines for anthrax, we were trying to bring companies n. and unless we have the money up front that they knew we were going to be a reliable partner, many of the important companies
backed out. i really don't want to see that now when we need a vaccine and other counter measures so desperately. >> when will it be too late? dr. schuchat: we held our summit with the departments on april 1 because we know mosquito season scoming. but they are going to need to actually develop mosquito control efforts, surveillance, and a lot of difficult tasks. knowing that there is some resources now is helpful. they are frustrated because some of the resources are come interesting other programs that they have. the problem here is that the mosquitos come, people get infected, and then it's several months before the baby is born. we are really trying to protect every pregnant woman we can right now. so we have this double whammy you see the illness now, you'll see the horrible effects on the child many months from now. we don't want to wait for that. we need to act before then. >> time for a couple more.
>> you said in the beginning you were moving money around right now. where is that money coming from? e second question is, is there abcontinue necessary information in the zika kit? dr. fauci: the fiscal year will end at the end of september. we have money planned for other things. that could be malaria, tuberculosis, and we have that money that is going to go into the project that is are going to just continue to progress the way they are. we are taking that money and now spending it on zika. and if we don't we furbish that money, those programs will stop. that's what i mean. what we are trying to do is keep everything going but you reach a point when you don't come in and backfill it that things stop. and that's what i was referring to of my concern. >> what are those programs? dr. fauci: several. one would be malaria. the other would be universal flu vaccines. the other would be
tuberculosis, things like that. >> -- dr. schuchat: the guidance issued for couples in terms of spread include both condemocrats and abstinence. the actual wording in the materials for puerto rico i am neat sure of. we were doing focus testing for the appropriate way to message. >> can you tell us -- about women want to become pregnant. can you just tell us more about the young body syndrome. how dangerous is it for the rest of the population? at what point to tell people try to avoid going south. dr. fauci: i'll address the part about the neurological and have dr. schuchat talk about what recommendses likely may or may not come out. the issue is we are seeing these case reports of things that we this not seen before with other similar viruses.
i mentioned the acue myelitis in a young person. an 81-year-old man who developed encephalitis, and the two cases what they are calling a.d.m. we don't know what the denominator is of that. that's the reason why you do these studies and surveillance studies which the c.d.c. and others are trying to get exactly what is the extend tenth of that. re these just outliar cases? when you look carefully are you going to see a lot of them. the concern we are having at the same time we are seeing the clinical man festation in people, everything that we do in an animal model or in vitro cell line is bad news. the most recent of one when they put zooka virus into neuro stem cells, they have these things call organ doids, a pseudo brain formation, get completely destroyed. they have a variety of other things related to the
neurological system. it appears to be very toxically neuro tropic. that's the thing that's concerning. how that relates to how many of the clinical cases we'll see, we just have to keep our surveillance up. >> in terms of the additional travel guidance, we base our updated guidance on the best information we have. at this point we have enhanced travel for recommendations for women saying they consider deferring travel. i can't promise we would never have broader recommendations, but base it on the best information we have. soon guillain-barre syndrome is fairly rare. if this is truly causing an increase, it still may be relatively uncommon. so an individual needs that information but it may not lead to us saying don't go. >> you mentioned part of the
epidemic in puerto rico seriousness. now there have been reports from haiti that it's growing very seriously. and that the problem is compounded reluctance of people to report and say what problem they have at medical centers. what precisely are you doing with haiti given its proximity to the united states? dr. schuchat: haiti is a key country for us. we have been working closely with the authorities in haiti since before the earthquake and following on intensive support for the public health system there. we share concern about haiti. the mosquitos are there. the virus is there. and the population is quite vulnerable. we do have a c.d.c. country office in haiti that's working together with the authorities. it's essentially the same principle what we are doing in puerto rico that people need to be protected against mosquitos, thrick pregnant women. and of course care is not really going to be as strong there. we don't have specific treatment, if you got
guillain-barre syndrome in haiti, it would bedy. we share the concern and are working with our c.d.c. counterparts there. >> thank you, doctors, for coming. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> politico and a number of news organizations have reported that house speaker paul ryan will hold a news conference at 3:15 today and will definitively roll rule out a whout bid this year. speaker ryan will appear at the republican national committee's headquarters on capitol hill. he has ruled out running for president multiple times, but the denials have not stuck. speaker ryan has said he believes the 2016 republican nominee should be chosen from the pool of more than two dozen candidates who have run for the job. you can read more about that in politico.com. again we'll have live coverage of the statement here on c-span starting at 3:15 eastern. protesters gathered outside union station on capitol hill yesterday to bring awareness to the influence of money in politics. the rally organized by
>> one vote. i believe, that we will win. that we will win. >> that we win will. >> that we will win. >> that we will win. >> that we will win. democratcy. >> democracy. >> democratcy. >> democracy. >> democracy. >> democracy. democracy! cheers and applause] > how you-all doing today? those of you who don't know me, i'm so excited to see you guys here. all your beautiful faces. so excited to see all these beautiful armbands and headbands. i'm so energized. you feeling energized? are you excited about
democracy? are you excited about takeing steps to reclaim our democracy? me, too. yeah. so we got a couple speakers before we take on. so first i would like to introduce you to jake huber. i know. for those of you that don't know, jake is the host the orld's online news show. he's the c.e.o. and true leader of the progressive media community. please give it up for jake. cheers and applause]
>> so great to see you guys. wonderful to see you out here. all right. so i'm going to start with a study because that's always exciting. so there was a study of over two decades, 1800 policy decisions and they realized that public opinion has no correlation to public policy. in other words, that house over there, congress, they don't give a damn what we think. there was one thing that had a direct correlation to public policy, and that was donor opinion.
special interest opinion. so unfortunately that great, great house over there has been deeply corrupted. all of you are here to take .hat house back because it isn't their house, t's our house. whose oust? >> ours! >> who's house? >> ours! >> who's house! >> our house! >> theamplet so we started -- i started 14 years ago, i started wolfpack in 2011. at occupy new york. the point of wolfpack is to say fix this mess, right. so what we need in this country is our right as americans, free
and fair elections. [cheers and applause] >> i can't imagine the founding fathers not being enormously proud of you guys here. because they put it in the constitution that we need to amend the constitution from time to time to make it a more perfect union. so they envisioned exactly this moment. in fact, they put in article 5 at some point it is likely that congress will get too corrupt and the people will have to get an amendment through the states. so they saw t. they were geniuses, they saw this very movement. i want to tell you something about this movement, there are some that are in the press that are naysayers. by the way, why are they naysayers, critics, why don't they believe? because they are the establishment.
so when you got billion dollar companies who make billions of dollars to put money in politics, where does the money go? it goes to tv ads. you think those tv stations are going to turn down revenue to get our democracy back? they don't care about that. so of course they are not going to be on your side. but those naysayers, here's what they don't understand. we always win. get the short run, can we setbacks, of course. in the short run power and establishment n, of course. but martin luther king had a great saying about this. forever on the thrown, truth written on the scaffle fold, but that scaffle followed sways the future. and that scaffle followed is right here. -- scaff -- scaffle fold scaffold is --
right here. when we fought for women's rights we won. when we fought for gay rights we won when we fight to get our democracy back, we are going to win! this is the beginning of that victory. so when we march today, it's going to be a victory march. so we have been under siege for a long time by the establishment. it's time for us to put them under siege. so the first thing i ever said when i launched was they are not coming for us anymore, we are coming for them. and here you are coming for them right now today. one final thing for you guys.
women's rights movement seemed absolutely impossible. they were naysayers back then, critics back thefpblet they said, how in the world are you going to get women the right to vote when they can't vote in the first place? it's impossible. we did that, too. when they tell you today it's impossible, don't believe them. the whole point is to try to discourage you. i see you today. our wonderful brothers and sisters yesterday. are you not discouraged. a woman's right movement took 70 years, what they don't tell you, from the first day they were in the streets, it only took seven years to get that impossible amendment. it turned out that it was possible and that's exactly what we are going to dofment -- to do. here we are in the streets just like they did it. and it's great to see all of you here. just the beginning. i want to ask you one more time. who's house is that? >> our house!
>> who's house? >> our house! >> let's go on to our victory march. cheers and applause] >> ploys join me in welcoming our next speaker to the stage. femmist attorney, professor -- feminist attorney, professor, and fighting for justice from racial and economic equality to push fog constitutional equality for women. she's the president of n.o.w., national organization for women. please join me in giving it up for terry o'neill. >> hi, everybody. good morning. on behalf of the national organization for women, i am thrilled to be here to welcome
you to say we are working together to change our future. we know we can do it by working together. you know, the statement of purpose in our bylaws says that the purpose is to take action through intersectional grassroots organizing, to lead societal change, and build a feminist future, which will include all of us. what do we mean exactly when we say we are going to be doing intersectional grassroots organizing? for one thing when we work for gender justice, we will not be colorblind. we will any kind of policy we are looking at, how does that affect color? how does that impact my lgbt q sisters? how does that affect transgender women of color? what is the unemployment rate? homelessness rate?
if we are looking at any single policy we look to the marblingens and put them at the certainty of our work. hat is the dedication. and that is why, that is why n.o.w. is so adamant about overturning citizens united and getting money out of politics. and stopping these voters suppression laws, including an amendment to the constitution of the united states that says every citizen of this country is guaranteed the right to vote. i want to tell you very specifically why that's so important for women. when you ask yourself, what are these voter suppression laws specifically doing to women? let's begin the analysis with this. women work a lifetime at unequal pay. and that unequal pay, a large
part of it, is a ridiculously low, in fact, a poverty level, minimum wage. 2/3 of minimum wage workers in the united states are women. 70% of workers in the united states are women. a lot of people don't know this, the tip workers' minimum wage is $2.13. very disproportionately tip workers are women of color and their gross revenue is less than $6 because of this low minimum wage that is overwhelm for tip workers. why get a job? how are you going to support your family? by the way, 40% of families women are the by prie marry or sole breadwinners.
-- primary or sole breadwinners. when you are faces these economic injustice ass cross the board, economic injustices that are more deeply felt by lgbt q color, and women than women who look like me, now you look at the voter suppression laws and what do you find? well, a key part of voter suppression laws are voter i.d. laws. women are more likely to change their name. so it takes extra time and extra resources to find not only your birth certificate but your marriage certificate and very often your divorce key cree to go and prove to septic -- decree to go and prove to skeptical agents you are entitled to vote in this contry. it is outrageous and a burden that falls disproportionately on the people with the fewest resources. we do not accept that. we are going to change it by taking back our country.
so let's look at what happened and let's be clear about how that voter suppression system got into north carolina. how it gets into ohio. how it gets into florida. that happens because of money in politics. way too much money in politics. in theory a rich guy like in les koch or david, theory they could use their money to help elect the president, candidate, couldn't they? the reality is, the koch brothers will always use their money to elect conservatives. and what do conservatives legislators do as soon as they get into office? you look at what happened. what happened in 2010 and 2011 and 2012 and on to today, conservative legislators at the state and federal level are
waging an abominable war on women. that is what happens to women. they are determined to block the $15 minimum wage. we are determined to achieve $15 because that will help women. but with money in politics, you have politicians that want to block that minimum wage. with money in politics we have politicians that are trying to block women from abortion care. one in three of us. one in three women will have an abortion by the age of 45. it is a common and necessary aspect of our basic reproductive health care. these conservative politicians are also trying to block us from achieving -- accessing birth control. where 99% of sexually active women in this country utilize birth control at some time. what does it mean when a woman can't access basic reproductive health care? she can't keep that lousy job she's got.
she can't determine the number and spacing of her pregnancies, how is she going to manage her career? how is she going to manage keeping the job she has? how is she going to make up -- decide what kind of family she has and then support the family in dignity and economic security? we must get money out of politics because that is the only way we will begin to elect more progressive politicians who will put our policies first. who will put our needs and our interest first. so women -- i way overstepped my time. i apologize. i do get excited about this. we are with you. we will take our country back, thank you. [applause]
executive director of the franciscan action network. please join me in welcoming him. [applause] thank you and welcome. what is our history worth? naublenauble sacrifice. that was actually a quote that we came up with several years ago when a whole group of us couple blocks from here did a 30-day hunger fast for immigration. my brother umi was speaking there also. we did a 30-day fast of just water to protest our immigration policies. closer. ok. how's that? better? great. you know, i'm part of the rancisk -- franciscan state.
we're normally quiet. people of all colors and all sexualities joining together to bring a prophetic voice to raise awareness, to bring an end to the question of big politics. to work together for a free and fair election which every american has -- we understand the responsibility of government to seek justice for all people and to build a common good. justice cannot be achieved unless the rules governing the democratic process are just and fair. for unless the rules governing democratic process are just and fair for all. [inaudible] not limited by power of money, social class and unequal action to public media. i know that today many of you are going to risk arrest. i won't be able to join you today. i'll be here next monday where
a whole group of faith leaders will risk arrest. i'll be thinking about you today. save space in the jail cell for us. i often get asked the question -- why? why as a person of faith participate in social disobedience and go on hunger fast? i get the question of, why should faith leaders even care about this issue? shouldn't we really, really just be interested in saving souls? and isn't there a separation of church and faith? and i tell people that i do this because for me this is prayer. this is how i pray. this is how i live my faith. [applause] i do it because this is what jesus did. this is st. patrick did. when jesus turned the tables over in the temple. when jesus healed on the sabbath which he did every single time he was committing an act of civil disobedience.
st. francis got naked in the public square to protest the iny quality of income among the people. go not suggesting you all and get naked, by the way. we all thought about it at one time but we thought, no, not a god idea. so we need -- we need to rewrite our story. we feed to rewrite our story to a story of connectedness, not a story of separation. we need to rewrite our story as spiritual people so that we have a story that tells us that people are not considered illegal because they want to come for a better life. that we want a story that tells us that children are not sold into slavery so we can have cheap cell phones and cheap coffee and cheap chocolate. e want a story where we can -- our government is not controlled by a few wealthy people and that our laws are
made to protect them. where people's voting rights are not taken away and racism is rare and not prevalent. money has always played a key role in electoral politics, but what kind of role is played should be subject to regulation that reflects ethical and democratic values? most important, it is necessary to have policy safeguards which ensure that more than just the wealthiest interest groups have a voice in the public sphere. broad spectrum of faith traditions that recognize each person as a gift of the creator and exercises the human dignity of each and every person. every person should not only have the right to vote but he or she should have the right to speak and to be heard. every person are shared teachings tell us should be able to contribute his or her ideas. the shaping of our democratic government and our policies.
we support the democratic process which was founded on the concept that the best solution of problems come from the marketplace of ideas where everyone, everyone can contribute. but these contributions can be merely meaningless when they're drowneded out by a few wealthy people. for christians, this issue should be very simple. it could not be any clearer than it says in matthew 6 that you cannot worship both god and money. [applause] as people -- by the way, you should be telling -- we should be telling all the members of congress who claim to be christians, just tell them that. every single one of them, tell them that. by the way, about 95% of the people in congress claim to be christian. and i really use that word plain too. as people of faith we experience results that unlimited money has on whether it be on immigration reform, gun safety, voting rights,
climate justice and the ability to have an open and honest discussion on any of these issues. as spiritual people, we're called to create a beloved community. we're called to care for the poor and yet it's impossible to create a common home when the partisan divide in america is fueled by attack ads surround unded by interest groups not identifiable. and you can't have corporate funding to support prison systems or work to deny certain classes of people the right to vote. a beloved community is not one where wealthy voices are the only ones that are heard. catholic social teachings tell us that nature of the public common good should be focused on the needs of those most vulnerable in society. as money begins to weigh more than our own voices and views,
people see this country holding its democracy. polls have shown that 80% of registered voters across all party affiliations say they believe that a political system is corrupt and needs reform. -- our political system is corrupt and needs reform. [applause] pope francis in discussing the role of money said, we've created new idols of the golden -- image in the cult of money in a dictatorship of an economy which is faithless and lacking any true humane goals. pope francis also said, we have a culture of where human beings themselves are considered as consumer goods which can be used and thrown away. , fourth the st. john century catholic theologian said not to use one goods and to rob them and to prescribe of them of plight, it is
[inaudible] so faith communities are in a unique position to make sure the voices of those in heard are not ignored. our government have become beholden to those who can spend most in the election. [inaudible] all it takes, though is one good person. one person to restore hope. one. that's all of us. money in politics is not just a political issue. it's a moral issue. nd pope francis called for a bold cultural revolution. an interesting thing for a pope a e calling a -- for revolution. that's be part of that revolution. let's start the revolution today. thank you. [applause] >> give it up for patrick,
everybody. awesome. i have another amazing speaker to introduce you to. please join me in welcoming umi selah, co-founder of the dream defenders, an organization committed to shifting the culture, dedicated to building a community of love and reconciliation and training and organizing young peem in nonviolent civil disobedience. umi, everyone. [applause] umi: repeat after me -- what a time to be alive. what a time to be alive. what a time to be alive. we are an unprecedented kind. so even as the right wing keeps e -- uesurpts the democratic
process of our country, we come from every gutter, from every margin that the left is rising. that people are standing up in every corner of this country an saying no more to the corporate class. no more to the billionaire class. and even as our voices are rising from every nook and cranny of this soon to be great country, there are people that say that we have no right to be here. there are people that say we are wasting our time. there are people that say we are asking for far too much too fast. and we say to those people we are only asking, we are only demanding everything that was promised to us. [applause] our y to them that we take -- not just from our rights as human beings but from the document they hold so dear and great. that we hold these rights to be
self-evident that all men and women and 60's are endowed by their creator for their in-- in order to secure these governments are instituted among people to secure their rights, the rising their just powers from the consent of the govern. that any -- when any of these governments become destructive of these, it is the duty of the people to, what? to abolish it. [applause] to abolish it. or to abort it. repeat after me. we are here to abolish it or abort it. why? because the constitution told us to. and so we stand here to say no more. we are rising up. nd all we need is power.
confirmation and miracles. we want it. we need it. we got to have it. right now. right now. right now. power. transformation. and miracles. we want it. we want it. we need it. we need it. we got to have it. right now. right now. right now. right now. right now. evolution below revenue. community before corporation. and all power to the people. [applause] >> all right. there we go.
ok. i want to welcome patrick back to the stage to give us a quick blessing before we continue with our program. patrick. and umi. oth. patrick: we spent a lot of time not eating and just drinking water two years ago and we spent a lot of time talking in a tent while we were doing all of that so we became very close and brothers. i want him up here with me. there we go. i want to read a quick passage from james from the bible. thank you. ok. come now you rich. we've been hallowed full of misery that is coming upon you. your gold and silver have been croded and your croded will be evidence against you and will
eat your flesh like fire. you have laid up trsures in the last days. who have moved your fields. are crying out against you and the cries of the harp -- the lord of -- you have lived on the earth in self-indulgence. we have fattened your heart in a day of slaughter. so let's go forth and let's in the spirit of all spirituality, spirit of the universe, let's go forth and start the revolution. let's go forth and carry forward what pope francis said, culture revolution. in whatever faith tradition you practice or don't practice, let's do it together, do it as one. amen. [applause] >> all right. we have a couple more people to hear from. i'd love to welcome to the stage adam green, co-founder of progressive campaign committee.
one million member advocacy group. adam. adam: hello. i'm adam green with the progressive change campaign committee. who is ready to tell the billionaires and corporations no more buying elections? [applause] who is ready to tell congress and the supreme court that we need to reverse and overturn citizens united? [applause] and who is ready to tell congress and a lot of republican state legislators that we need to protect voting rights? that is what binds us together here today. and i want to start off by acknowledging and thanking the people who walked, who marched from philadelphia to washington, d.c., the last 10 days. raise your hand if you're one of them. raise your hand. thank those people. [applause]
i was proud to go with you yesterday and met so many amazing people. i was with my dog. also want to thank the people who have given in some cases days, in some cases weeks, in some cases months and in at least one case years to organizing this event. the organizers, thank you so much for doing uffering you've done leading up to this event. raise your hand if you are one of the organizers. hand.your [applause] the reason that the work of the marchers and the work of the organizers and volunteers are so important is they have created a foundation upon which we all stand today. they have put oxygen in the room for our issues to get attention. already we have seen media from msnbc to n.p.r. to vice to the philadelphia inquirer, the international media already covering just the events of
past days and look at all the media that are here today standing on the foundation that's being created. [applause] you know, the marchers and organizers have empowered groups like ours to email our million members with vis ules over the last week of amazing marchers, taking back their democracy. they've empowered over 100 organizations who are part of this next week telling their members, you need to get to d.c. and the images we all tweet out today, to our friends will actually inspire others who are on the fence to come and join us for the entire next week. let's make sure we're diligent telling others just how amazing this action is. and we all know a lot of people that care about a lot of issues and the key point for everyone to remember and for the media to report, the reason that
campaign finance reform and voting rights are so important is because our success on these issues are key to our progress on every single other issue. if we allow all americans to vote and if we get big money out of politics, that makes our job infin italy easier if we care -- infinityly easier if we care about it. taking on the big oil companies and doing something about climate change. taking on the for-profit prisons and passing reform of our criminal justice laws. taking on the for-profit colleges who have so much money and doing something about ducation in this country and student aid. our military industrial complex, taking on them that impacts wars and lives and impacts trillions of dollars
that could be invested in our communities. all of these issues will become easier if we are successful today and that's why it's so important we are here. so my final point is, well, so why will it make a difference? first, our goal is to change the conversation and force congress and lawmakers to act on the people's agenda. and through a show of force, by coming here and not going away, by the media reporting on the actions of all of us together and us through social media, again, we are putting options in the room so these set of issues will thrive and we're forcing presidential candidates and house members and senators to all be accountable to us, the people. who's in? [applause] we are here together that's so special. a civil ud to become
disobedience but this is the first time with the intent of risking arrest today. and it's great to see so many arm bands around here and i got to say, you know, if there was ever a time in life to do it, i can think of no more set of important issues, i can think of no better organized efforts and i can think of no set of other people to do it with. thank you so much. [applause] >> all right. how is everybody feeling? yeah! awesome. i know i'm going to make a quick note. i know you are live streaming, tweeting, getting the message out. we encourage you to do it. we want to see your pictures. if you want to tweet anything, please hashtags,
#democracyspring. and we have #pringiscoming. >> you can watch the rest of this democracy spring sit-in on our website c-span.org. and remarks from house speaker paul ryan. the speaker: we had important conversations about isis. the security threat in that region and around the world but i'll tell you, it is really amazing how our politics is followed so closely overseas. i was asked about it everywhere i went. i'm also aware that while i was overseas, there was more speculation that someone other than the current candidates will emerge as our party's nominee. i want to put this to rest once and for all. as you know, i have stayed out of this race and i have remained neutral as chairman of the republican convention, my job is to ensure there is integrity in the process, that the rules are followed by the rulebook.
that means it is not my job to tell delegates what they should do. but i've got a message to relay today. we have too much work to do in the house to allow this speculation to swirl or to have my motivations questioned. so let me be clear. i do not want nor will i accept the nomination for our party. so let me speak directly to the delegates on this. if no candidate has a majority in the first ballot, i believe that you should only choose om a person who has actually participated in the prirpe. count me out. i simple -- in the primary. count me out. i simply believe if you want to be the nominee for our party, to be the president, you should actually run for it. i chose not to do this. therefore, i should not be considered, period, end of story. i just think it would be wrong for it to be any other late.
let me say again, i am not going to be our party's nominee. but i'll also be clear about something else. not running does not mean i am going to disappear. when i accepted this speakership, i did so on the condition that i would do things dimple than they had been done -- differently than they had been done in the past. i made it clear this would be a policy and communications speakership. i made clear in 2015 before the primaries even started that we would be putting together a policy agenda and offer a clear choice to the american people. that's what i told my colleagues i would do and that is exactly what i have been doing. look, there is a big debate going on right now. it's about what kind of country we're going to be. as speaker of the house, i believe that i have not just an opportunity but an obligation to advance that debate. as i've talked about this before, politics today, it tends to drift toward
personality contests, not policy contests. insulted get inked more than ideas. but we still owe it to the country to show what we would do if given a mandate from the people. we have an obligation to give a clear picture, a clear choice to talk about solutions. that's why i've been giving speeches. that is why i've been communicating a vision for what our party and our country can be and that is why i'm going to continue doing just that. i believe we can once again be an optimistic party that is defined by our belief in the limitless possibility of our people. we want a party defined by solutions. by being on the side of the people. we want to take our principles and apply them to the problems of the day. embrace free enterprise and reject cronyism. promote up ward mobility, provide solutions to those who are stuck in fighting poverty. offer a tax code that rewards
work, not a well-connected. a strong and focused military. a health care system that promotes choice and flexibility. a secure border. a government that allows people to fulfill their american idea. you know this great idea that the condition of your birth doesn't determine the outcome of your life, that's the kind of agenda we are building right now and that is the kind of an agenda that we are going to be releasing in the next few months. this job provides a platform to communicate a conservative vision for our country, and i am intent on using it and i am intent on using this platform, not for me, but for my house colleagues and for those who believe that conservatism holds the keys to a confident america. this is a critical role that has to be played, and i am in a position to play that role, to prepare for the fall campaign with our eventually nominee that gives a -- eventual nominee that gives a clear and compelling choice for our
fellow citizens to fix our problems and to get our country back on track. thank you. reporter: speaker ryan, a lot of people said, hey, this is exactly what you said becoming speaker and then you ended up becoming job. what do you say to people who are skeptical of -- spoirk apples and oranges. -- the speaker: apples and oranges. speaker of the house is a far cry from being president of the united states. i was already in the house. i was a congressman. i took a responsibility from congress. that is entirely different than getting the nomination for president of the united states by your party without running for the job. so completely nonsecretary which tore in my books. reporter: what happens if it goes to a second ballot and what happens, you as chair of the convention, somebody from the floor and your adhering to the rulebook -- the speaker: i will not allow
my name. i am opposed to my name being put in place. look, the rules committee -- let me answer your second question. the rules committee, which asempings the delegates, will decide what the rules are but i would encourage those delegates to put in place a rule that says you can only nominate someone that actually ran for the job. reporter: speaker ryan, do you think that the three candidates remaining -- the speaker: i'll leave it up to the delegates at the rules committee to decide that. i just think -- i really believe, if you want to be president, you should run for president. and when we select a nominee, we should be selecting among people who actually ran for the job. i'll leave it at that. thank you very much. appreciate it. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org] >> madam secretary, we proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the
united states. ♪ >> in political convention news, "the hill" reporting that a number of top republicans may skip the republican national convention in july. cnn reported this today. among the biggest names considering skipping is former florida jeb bush, senators kelly ayotte of new hampshire and richard burr of north carolina, both of who are up for re-election this fall. governor bush said he doesn't
plan on attending the convention and senator ayotte, i got a lot to do in new hampshire. i will be focusing on my voters in new hampshire, she said. senator burr echoing senator ayotte's sentiments. i'm up for re-election. i'm more valuable outside of cleveland than inside of cleveland. again, that from thehill.com today. earlier today president obama designated a national monument in honor of women's rights and suffrage movements. the newly designated belmont paul women's equality national monument will be the latest edition to the national park service. [cheers and applause] president obama: thank you very much, everybody. thank you. everybody, please have a seat. have a seat. hello, everybody.
thank you for the introduction. it should be noted that today is equal pay day, which means a woman has to work about this far in the 2016 just to earn what a man earned in 2015. and what better place to commemorate this day than here at this house where some of our country's most important history took place and where this history needs to inform the work that remains to be done. i want to thank some of the leaders who worked to keep this house standing. we got members of congress like senator barbara mikulski who fought to preserve this site for years, and has been the longest serving woman in the united states designate. [applause] secretary of the interior,
sally jewell, and her team as we celebrate the 100th birthday of the national park service this year. one of our greatest athletes of all-time, one of the earliest advocates for equal pay for professional female athletes and a heroine of mine when i was still young and fancied myself a tennis player, billie jean king is in the house. [applause] and the national woman's party board of directors, paige harrington, the executive director of the house and the museum. [applause] over the years paige and her staff have built a community and cared for this house, repairing every cracked pipe and patching every leaked roof.
we are grateful for their stewardship. i know it was not easy. equal pay for equal work should be a fundamental principle of our economy. it's the idea that whether you're a high school teacher, a business executive or a professional soccer player or tennis player, your work should be equally valued and rewarded. whether you are a man or a woman. it's a simple idea. it's a simple principle. it's one that our leader of the democratic caucus in the house, nancy pelosi, has been fighting for for years, but it's one where we still fall short. today the typical woman who works full time earns 79 cents for every dollar that a typical man makes. and the gap is even wider for women of color. a typical black woman makes only 60 cents. a latino woman 55 cents for
every dollar that a white man earns. now, if we truly value fairness, america should be a level playing field where everyone who works hard gets a chance to succeed. and that's good for america because we don't want some of our best players on the sidelines. that's why the first bill that i signed as president was the lilly ledbetter fair pay act. earlier this year on the anniversary of that day, the department of labor acted to begin collecting annual data on pay by gender, ethnicity and this will strengthen the enforcement of equal pay laws that are already on the books and help employers address pay gaps on their own. and to build on these efforts, congress needs to pass the paycheck fairness act to put sensible rules in place and make sure -- [applause] and make sure that employees
who discuss their salaries don't face retaliation by their employers. but i'm not here just to say we should close the wage gap. i'm here to say we will close the wage gap. and if you don't believe me, then -- if you don't believe that we're going to close that wage gap, you need to come visit this house. because this house has a story to tell. this is the story of the national women's party whose members fought to have their voices heard. these women first organized in 1912 with little money but big hopes for equality for women all around the world. they wanted an equal say over their children, over their property, their earnings, their inheritance, equal rights to their citizenship and a say in their government. equal opportunities in schools and universities, workplaces,
public service and, yes, equal pay for equal work. and they understood that the power of their voice and our democracy was the first step in achieving these broader goals. their leader, alice paul, was a brilliant community organizer and political strategist and she recruited women and men from across the country to join their cause. and they began picketing seven days a week in front of the white house to demand their right to vote. they were mocked, they were derided, they were arrested, they were beaten. there were force feedings during hunger strikes and through all this, women young and old kept marching for suffrage, kept protesting through suffrage and in 1920 they won that right. we ratified the 19th amendment, but the suffragists didn't stop there. they moved in this historic house and they continued their work from these rooms, steps away from the capitol.
they drafted speeches and letters and legislation. they pushed congress and fought for the passage of the equal rights amendment. they advocated for the inclusion of women in the u.n. charter in the 1964 civil rights act. they campaigned for women who were running for congress. this house became a hotbed of activism, a centerpiece for the struggle for equality. a monument to a fight not just for women's equality but ultimately for equality for everybody because one of the things we learned is that the effort to make sure that everybody's treated fairly is connected and so today i am very proud to designate it as america's newest national monument. the belmontpaul women's equality national monument right here. the belmont-paul women's equality national monument right here. [applause]
we do this -- we do this to help tell the story of these suffragists in these rooms, they pursued ideals which shouldn't be relegated to the archives of history, shouldn't behind glass cases but the story they're fighting is our story. i want young girls and boys to come here 10, 20, 100 years from now that women fought for equality, it wasn't given to them. i want them to come here to be astonished that there was a time that women wasn't able to vote and they earned less than men for doing the same work and a women that were vastly outnumbered in the board room or in congress. that there ever was a time when women had never sat in the oval office. now, i don't know --
[applause] i don't know how long it will take to get there, but i know we're getting closer to that day because of the work of generations of active committed citizens. one of the interesting things, as i was just looking through some of the rooms, there was susan b. anthony's desk. you had elizabeth katie stanton's chair. and you realize that those preceded agists had alice paul by a generation. they had passed away by the time that, you know, the vote was finally granted to women. and it makes you realize -- and i say this to young people all
the time -- this is not a sprint. this is a marathon. it's not the actions of one person, one individual but it is a collective effort where ach generation has its own duty, its own responsibility, its own role to fulfill in advancing the cause of our democracy. that's why we're getting closer because i know there's a whole new generation of women and men who believe so deeply that we've got to close these gaps. i have faith because what this house shows us is that the story of america is a story of progress and it will continue to be a story of progress as long as people are willing to keep pushing and keep organizing and, yes, keep voting for people committed to this cause. and to full equality for every american. and so i'm hoping a young generation will come here and draw inspiration from the
efforts of people who came before them. after women won the right to vote, alice paul, who lived most of her life in this very house, said it is incredible to me that any woman should consider the right for full equality won. it has just begun, and that's the thing about america, we are never finished. we are a constant work in progress, and our future belongs to every free woman and man who takes up the hard work of citizenship, to win full equality and shape our own destiny. that is the story that this house tells. it is now a national monument and that young people will be inspired for years to come. it would not have happened without the extraordinary efforts of many of the people in this room, not only their active support of this house and preserving it but also the outstanding example that they are setting, that you are setting. i'm very proud of you. congratulations. thank you very much, everybody.
the u.s. house remains in recess until 4:30 afternoon when members will begin work on four small bills including the f.d.a. voucher program that includes companies that develop treatments for the zika virus and would penalize those for those seeking to obtain veterans benefits. later this week members will work on southwest border security and internet access bills. live coverage when the house reconvenes at 4:30 eastern ime. >> this month we showcase our student cam winners. c-span's annual video documentary competition for middle and high school students this year's theme is road to the white house and students were asked -- what issues do you want presidential candidates to discuss. one of our second prize winners s from sandy spring, maryland.
john and matt, 10th graders at sherwood high school want presidential candidates to discuss campaign finance laws and their video is tiled "campaign finance: the issue of all issues." >> let's talk about an issue that affects every other issue across our nation, and it may not be what you immediately hink of because campaign isn't exactly a glamerous issue. that's right, campaign finance, the way money gets from donor to candidate, the method, the amount, the motivation, the inherent problem with unlimited money in politics. 84% of americans think money has too much influence in politics. yet, for being such a monumental problem in our democracy, campaign finance is southerly underdiscussed. the 2016 presidential candidates need to step up and tell us their plan for campaign
finance reform. because it is the issue of all ssues. to learn more about the basics of campaign finance, i went to talk with my u.s. government teacher at sherwood high school. mr. allen, why do candidates even care about money in an election? >> money essentially buys you name recognition. without name recognition, when the voters go in on election day and see your name, they are not going to make a connection they should vote for you. >> what is the citizens united supreme court case? > changed the way that the first amendment, freedom of speech, applies to the public funding of federal elections. >> what did that do? >> so in essence what it did was remove the restrictions on what outside money, money not connected to the campaign, can be used for. the outside groups which can raise unlimited sums of money may now spend them in unlimited amounts to explicitly say
basically whatever they want. >> why would money in politics even be a problem? >> the people who are opposed to it claim that if you're going to equate money with freedom of speech, that those people with the most money will then have the most influence in an election. >> these are 120 individual smiley faces, really. each smiley face represents one million american households. here's a number for you -- $567.3 million, that's all of the money raised in 2015 for the 2016 presidential election. well, half of all of that came from just 158 families. to represent that we'd have to take a single smiley face and cut it to .0001% of its original size.
50% of all the money raised for the 2016 presidential election so far came from this tiny sliver. you might be wondering how the government makes sure all that money stays regulated. i went to the federal election commission in d.c. to talk to commissioner elaine weintraub about the process. >> we run a federal agency that administers and enforces the laws governing campaign finance. as commissioner we are in charge of the management of the agency and policy decisions that the commission makes. >> how has the citizens united upreme court case affected the flow of money in politics? >> we are starting to see now more money being raised and spent, but coming from fewer donors and less transparency because the money is now shifting over to the super p.a.c.'s, and in some cases to
organizations where they can accept unlimited contributions. >> do you think that's a good thing? >> i think it really is not a great trend for democracy. if you believe every citizen has the same rights and representation in the government. >> do you think the fines the f.e.c. imposes are enough of a deterrent? >> i think they're an important deterrent and critically important that the agency play a significant role in monitoring and enforcing the law and making sure that people who violate the law are held accountable in a significant way. if we have seen challenges in that regard in the past few years. >> is the f.e.c. working to stop rule breakers? >> i think this agency can work and has worked in the past. a lot of people say set up to fail. there are six commissioners and by law no more than three can be from any one party. so some people say it's designed to gridlock. i think it's designed to
compromise. fortunately, compromise has been a little bit in short supply around here in recent years. >> here's why the f.e.c. sluggishness should concern you. candidates are raising a ton of money. 2016 presidential candidate jeb bush has already raised four times more than every candidate in 2012 combined. harvard professor larry ran his presidential campaign on this issue. when i talked to him he had some pretty harsh things to say about our current system. you often say money is corrupting to government. how so? >> i think the corrupting influence is the influence that as the candidate spends if you're a member of congress 30% to 70% of your time raising money. >> do things like super p.a.c.s make that worse? >> what that means this is
>> at this point you may be wondering what can even be done? you would be surprised how many different ideas are out there and just waiting to be implemented. >> we need new legal ction. valeo and ley v. citizens united overturned. >> what this act needs to do is make sure that the laws stay up with the changes that the supreme court makes. >> i think the much more important change is to establish citizens for an election. public funding of election. >> we should fully disclose to the public the sources of campaign expenditures. >> it's really free television time is the core, is the core of this solution. >> it would essentially amend the constitution to permit congress to regulate campaign finance. it's ok that people have different ideas on how to
approach this issue, what matters is doing something. inaction and silence are just not options. the 2016 presidential candidates need to tell us their plan because until then every issue will be affected by this issue. >> to watch all of the prize winning documentries in this year's student cam competition, visit studentcam.org. >> a segment now from this orning's "washington journal", efforts to reform campaign financing, and the impact of the 2010 supreme court citizens united campaign finance decision. continues. host: in a tuesday roundtable in the washington journal, we are talking about money in politics, the impact of the united -- citizens united supreme court decision.
christian berger is former deputy general counsel at citizens united and he that we us, ofgin with -- remind what citizenship was about and what changed as a result. people losea lot of the fact that this was a small nonprofit corporation trying to make a movie about hillary to an -- about heller a clinton. when a look at the federal election campaign finance laws, they realized they were several crumbled code that penalties if they were to run television ads saying come watch our movie. they went to court to promote a film, they went to court for some basic first amendment rights and that gets lost in this debate. a lot of people say citizens united is about corporations, corporations being people. it's not why citizens united went to court. they just wanted to show their movie. host: take us to 2016, impact of
that case you are seeing. seeing int we are 2016 is the impact of not always this and united, it also another case decided at the appellate level and we have secret money, no shareholder protection, and we have single candidate super pac's. aboutf those were talked in citizens united, but are the results that we have. we have a decision that was wrongly decided in the sense that it created this right for corporate free-speech in elections. we are not even getting what the court promised. that thehe disclosure court voted for, we do not have the ability of shareholders to extent of the corporations they have shares in and we have single candidate super pac's that are coordinating closely only in the legal definition, are they mehow independent.
we really have a wild west of money with dark money groups, it is hard to lay that necessarily at the feet of citizens united, i think the irs has a lot of credit for these groups that could have foreign money in them. theeally have no idea what sources of money is and they are spending significant amounts to influence the outcome of the 2016 elections. we are not only talking about the presidential level, but also the congressional and even state races. the presidential level gets a lot of the attention. host: and that billion dollars raised so far in this campaign cycle, that is just the presidential cycle, not the senate or house elections. that wild west term, do you think it has become a wealth west? guest: i don't think it has, i think when you look at super pac's, which is what a lot of people talk about, that is all transparent. we know where the hundred
million dollars raised to support jeb bush came from. we can see that in the fec report. certainly a cost the spectrum, -- so we across the spectrum, there is the worry that corporations are going to buy elections, it is not come to fruition and in this cycle, we are not being it happen. what we have is, some disclosure of the federal election commission where the super pac money is coming from. to ae of those donors super pac is a group called americans who love america, we have no i'm it -- we are no idea where that money is from. it is very limited and inefficient. we don't even know where this money for the super pac's is coming from. we have had llc's that have made contributions. that there is disclosure for super pacs is a bit of a misleading
characterization. host: citizens united is not the first ruling on money and politics. what was the legal precedent that this case was built on. when you hear people blame citizens united for a lot of things -- decades of legal precedent have made clear that money is speech. host: what was that case about? guest: this is about whether or not you could curtail how much an individual can that candidate could spend on their own race and you cannot limit that. money is speech, it is a proxy for speech. guest: i think this notion that money is speech is not exactly what buckley said. there are a number of issues at play in buckley, everything from expenditure limits, contribution limits, limits on independent expenditures and what candidates can spend, themselves.
the court in that case did not say money is speech, but it did say that very serious implications for the first amendment. i think justice stevens in the nixon case that it much more on point -- got it much more on point that money is not speech, it is property. the -- there is a very interesting notion about how you apply the first amendment through the notion that money is speech versus how you apply those restrictions and protections if money is viewed as property. host: let me open the lines to get callers. phone lines are open. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. we will get your calls in just a second.
united, 2010, mccutchen 20 15, either -- are there wins you hang your hat on? guest: i don't want to limit spending, that is not the point. the point is, you have a situation where average people have very little ability to have any sort of impact on the races that are occurring. i want more speech by more people. i want more participation and we have a system now and it was raised in mccutchen by the dispensers, saying that we have -- got ridat allows of the aggregate contribution limit. youhave a system now where have the ability to drown out
the rest of the voices. this is really a question about an application. we all want to have a system in which every american not only can, but wants to to state. we don't have that right now. host: are people being drowned out? guest: i don't think mccutchen let's -- led to that and i don't think so. that is all the courts did. i think post citizens united, people have more speech, more opportunities to speak. they can join together with their friends and their peers and the people with similar situations and interest to raise money together and speak with one voice. they have more of a megaphone now than ever before. host: christian burke is a former deputy and citizens united. guest: i now represent super pacs.
do you have questions, phone lines are open. robert is in harrison, arkansas, a democrat. caller: good morning. i think this is a timely topic. i understood that nonprofits was specifically for welfare purposes only. go, we nowseen it have two major players. organized labor -- organized labor and the chamber of commerce. may take a partisan stance. the first thing i would suggest lose theirprofits status if they are not for social welfare purposes. the red cross was there. they were not picking politics. the man that is there that is s,gal counsel for these pac you are there for profit.
then a corporation with an individual, they should be limited like any other individual, if it is $25 like it is here in arkansas, that corporation -- i think it is outrageous for some of to think that it is a person. it is in accounting principle to protect the assets of those people there making money. those people should be recognized and should only be able to give the amount of money allowed like here in arkansas. i appreciate your time. host: i will let you start. guest: one thing to bear in mind, there are two forms of corporations when we talk about nonprofits. a 5013 c charity. if they do engage in political spending, they lose that status.
and we have 501(c) for social welfare groups, which exist to engage in public policy ideas, advocating positions. i think it is incumbent in them to use every tool available in the toolbox. will throw up definitions for our viewers if you want to see it. guest: i think it is a point to talk about 501(c) four. c3 charitable, c4 -- this is the world of the nonprofits. if you look at the law, the law says if you are a social welfare organization, you are exclusively for the purpose of social welfare. the internal revenue service
interpret that to say you do a little bit of a little bit of put collectivity but significantly you should be doing social welfare. in practicality and in practice, we now have a system in which a c4 social welfare organization spent up to 50% of tir money on political activity and can still be considered a social welfare. how that is exclusively is beyond reason. had hearings up on the hill where the issue has been how can we have a law that says exclusively and yet allow a social web organization that does not disclose its donors. host: where is that interpretation from? the irs. it has not changed since 1950. this is one of the situations
where there is so much to be done without having to change the law. you go to the irs and a look at this question about what constitutes exclusivity for social welfare. you go to the securities and exchange commission and say what should shareholders he able to know about political spending of their corporation, which the citizens united case promise will happen. whether it is the federal communications commission where you know who is running the ad, of the ad, ornsor you go to the election committee and they define questions like what constitutes coordination. all of these things can be done right now and do not require any constitutional amendments and do not require congress to act. in cap a,s go to john florida, and independent. byler: i have been appalled
the way the news media has a total blackout on the way merrick garland supported citizens united versus fcc ruling that equated the grasp of big money and political campaigns to freedom of speech. how could he be qualified as a supreme court justice when he these simplequate concepts? citizens united has been disastrous for the country. please answer this question. host: do you want to talk about merrick garland? guest: we have a system in our judiciary. the district court from the district of columbia is bound to abide by what the supreme court has handed down. i think judge garland in that court is bound by supreme court precedent. the question was there in the speech now case and he did confirm and the way the court looked at that was to say, this
is what the supreme court has said. i think we don't really know where we would come down on this . tois not really a role challenge with the supreme court has said here it is not necessarily a reflection of how do not knowe, but i we will get an opportunity to find that out. host: a lot of eyes on them. darlene is in st. paul, minnesota, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to ask both of your on this. comment the unions have been doing this for decades. the unions have been contributing hundreds of millions of dollars every election cycle.
what is the difference? as far as i am concerned, -- no money in politics. unitedhink the citizens decision is just leveling the playing field. so i would like to hear from both of your guests on that. guest: i agree completely. you have had outside influence for decades. in a way it said everyone has the ability to speak. voice, -- that guest: it is important to remember when the 1970 law was revised originally, the notion was a lyrical compromise. was not necessarily a realization that they were the same type of organization.
we have seen a huge increase in membership. i think you would find the sway of unions and politics and certainly with union members, decreasing. as much say ase they did 20 or 30 years ago. there is speculation the citizens united decision applies to the treasury fund of unions. therefore, they can have the same rights to make these independent expenditures. the issue here is not so much whether or not you they should be treated as similar types of entities or if they should be treated differently, which is what the union members claim, they say they're nothing like a corporation. that is a different discussion you have with the unions who have not been very happy with the legislation. talk about the campaign
legal center. guest: a nonpartisan nonprofit that works on issues related to money and politics issues, voting rights, redistricting reform, and we really try to take a look at those issues from a nonpartisan way. our president is trevor potter. some of the viewers may know him from his appearance on the colbert report. was john mccain's general counsel and a republican member of the general elections commission. a democrat who has done a lot of electioneering law and voting rights litigation for democrats. i have done nonpartisan lobbying for 30 years. taking your calls and questions, in cincinnati, ohio, a democrat, good morning. good morning. hillary has taken -- taken money from the fracking business.
know, to component out, can you all answer that question for me? host: charles hung up. did anyone catch that? guest: i think his point is hillary has taken a lot of money from special interests and is a recipient of a lot of super pac funds. look at bernie sanders, who has won eight of the last nine contests against hillary clinton while disavowing citizens united and super pac's. it has really shown the ability of small donors to have a voice in the process. host: you are the numbers on hillary clinton and bernie sanders. hillary clinton has raised $159.9 million for her individual campaign committee super pac supporting her and has raised $62.6 million.
bernie sanders has raised 139.8 million for her campaign committee. that's supporting him, $48,000. as my friend talks about, hillary clinton being the -- the recipient of super pac funds. butkust want to net dick -- supposedly, the funds were to be totally independent of the candidates. it shows you how ridiculous this is. everybody knows what is going on. this notion that the citizens united case talks about where independente expenditures, it is a farce and everybody knows it is a farce. even if he describes it, he sees it as a farce. is are saying she recipient of the super pac. host: what is the line of what you cannot do? guest: you cannot directly
coordinate. the super pac cannot eat with the candidate about how to spend the money. they cannot have any discussions about it. do the samen do is thing anybody does, open up the newspaper, try to infer how could a best spend their money. if you are the brother-in-law, mother, former staffer, you do not have to have a lot of tea leaves to read those. host: how do you prove coordination? to impossible.xt that would mean someone has to be in the room when they have the conversation. even if you did, even if you found proof that there was a conversation, we had a federal election commission so deadlocked, there would be no enforcement. everyone feels free to go ahead and figure out where the blurry
lines are and not worry about it. talk to lawyers where they can say, we know what the rules are. but there are no rules, particularly because so many super pac's are run by operatives that are very close and have worked with these candidates for so long, they do not need to have that conversation. super pac's are going to be run by people supportive of a candidate there are no question. people who are supportive may ofe a history overtime supporting a candidate or being familiar with the candidates positions or ideas. it is no surprise to me that people who have long been in the orbit of a candidate would set up an organization to support an event for that candidate. beach, anest palm independent. caller: with the funding, and passive in the candidacy race at this time, it has been forever.
with 5013 c and a 5014, those are the money factors holding the nonprofits and the corporations together today. with new seeds of funding like the corporate packages they have those types of funding options allow a different type of schedule of funding to the candidacy's party. the onlyd of the day, thing that will matter is elect world votes. -- electoral votes. host: tennessee, a republican, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. something i found astonishing
, of you showed your chart how much each candidate had raised so far, i found it very that theng to notice democrats were raising twice if not triple the money of what republicans were raising. when i hear people talk about the main people i hear hollering are democrats. it is almost like they are talking out of both sides of their mouth by saying, we should taxhave all of these evil s and people giving money, and yet we do not hear about the candidates other than bernie sanders, who has talked some about this. even he has raised $150,000. host: just to show you a
different chart, and i will let talk to your point, the original chart i was showing you what the candidates still in is a chart with the same number, the over $1 billion with individual campaign committees and supporting those, of all the presidential candidates have been in the race, and there is a lot more charticans there on that -- including the other democrats who have run as well. your caller does not quite have a complete view of a lot of people in the tea party with politicians working. it is one of the reasons you see the move behind donald trump. there is a new organization working on the issue from a conservative point of view, called take back republic. a campaigny who was
manager, of the representative of the. can tour. -- eric cantor. george w. bush's ethics counsel. book,a very interesting taxation only with representation. he looks at how the current for our national security, bad for business because it encourages -- it is bad for having a competitive race and holding incumbent members accountable. these are not from democrats or rhinos or whatever. are from very conservative republicans who think the system is really out of whack. is campaign finance a partisan issue? guest: i am not sure. i think there are two positions one is poor regulation is one is for deregulation.
disagree with that characterization that i'm not pro-regulation. what we need is a system that enables more americans to feel they have a voice. and what are the incentives? we do not have any right now. illinois, line for democrats where harold is calling in. thank you, c-span p are diverse a lot of good ideas on this. term limits, gerrymandering, all that, but let's get down to the fact the issue. donald trump came out and said what all republicans think but they usually keep under there had. and gave toficials their campaigns hoping to get something in return. in the old days, you went to jail for that.
lobbyists, it used to be that you went out and gathered nonatures and you found signatures in your district and your person would address the issue. now, if i can give you a bunch of money, you will vote my way. i think it is just a matter of the people getting back the power of sending these people to jail. if you bribed a public official, then you ought to go to jail. if the public official takes the money, he ought to go to jail. that would end all of this. i think the way this is set up right now, they are not going to do nothing about it until the people stand up. i am voting for bernie sanders and i hope he makes it. the bernie sanders thing will work is after you elect bernie sanders, you need to get rid of congress since chart all over. thank you. , start withian berg you. legal definitions again. quid pro quo, campaign
contributions, what does it take ? if someone is actually buying you off, if there is a direct payment for service, like meredith said, you need someone in the room to testify. has: meredith mcgehee, anyone been sanctioned under the idea of quid pro quo? guest: this is a very difficult prosecution for the public prosecutors. you have some representatives like cunningham, who was brilliant enough to write down his right list on a cocktail napkin. this is probably not the calendar -- caliber we will see with most members of congress. i want to take an issue with the caller when he talks about legalized bribery. i talk to a lot of business people, i know a lot more about legalized shakedowns.
it is expected to give a contribution. play the game, their interests and business and whatever issue they are interested in will be hurt. the reality is it is coming from both weird but there is a sense that if you do not play, and you talk to most lobbyists in washington, they feel like, if i do not play and have that breakfast, go to that fundraiser, make sure to bundle money, my clients or the interests i represent will be hurt. there is a feeling of the pay to play that you really have to do theere and i would note quid pro quo idea and the notion of corruption, part of what happened in karen -- is very dangerous. and that is, justice roberts has basically said corruption is quid pro quo bribery. there was a much more expansive
concept of what constitutes corruption. ability to show the money toen can be very difficult prove. we're seeing that in the mcdonnell case this month. i think meredith highlights something that is important. she is talking to her friends downtown, these lobbyists, and this is part of why so many americans are fed up and frustrated with washington, d.c. you look at the rise of outsider candidates like donald trump and ted cruz. explain what that case is. guest: the case with bob mcdonnell, he was convicted in , he has challenged those convictions, that what he
act.as not an official it therefore cannot be corrupt. when he gave access to mr. williams, he used the governors to meet with mr. williams and discuss what they could do. a businessman selling health products. giving a rolodex to the governor, letting him drive his car, catering his daughter's wedding. the defense governor mcdonnell's putting up is because none of those things about arranging the meetings constituted an official act and there was never annexed explicitgreement -- an agreement i would do that with the rolex -- rolodex. [laughter] you know, this will be a very interesting decision. has sown net -- is so narrow,
you think of mr. jefferson, $100,000 in his freezer. he also made a claim that writing letters was not an official act. it is a big question about what you expect. abdul, maryland, good morning. us is my first time calling. my comments are based upon earlier. you mentioned a nonprofit organization in the constitutional political race. why would they not be will to running,e to someone and also, i like the comment on donald trump.
proposing lowering corporate tax, is this -- thank you. guest: i can speak to nonprofit speech. use,inly helping at risk but if you're on the left or the right, i will always believe more speeches better speech. i will always fight for your are --, to the extent we quote -- participating in the political process is speech, i think it is important and within the wheelhouse, within the right of an organization to advocate for candidates, for their policy. even with citizens united, the court did not say corporation can give a direct contribution to a candidate. an independent
expenditure to express their views, but they still upheld the restriction on the ability of a corporation, whether a 501(c) corporation or a different kind leading directly to the candidate. host: tom, texas, a republican, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. every year, billions and billions and billions of dollars are spent campaign for democrats by these leftist super pacs, abc, nbc, cbs, npr, the our times. would he have any objection to putting strict limits on the amount of money that abc and nbc and cbs spend each year to produce their product? if so, what is the basis for her objection? in several cases, and it is ironic you bring up about the media, one of the groups that
has claimed the media exemption thatederal law which says abc, cbs, and other newspapers can spend their own money to express their views, one of the other groups that has that exemption is citizens united. and this hasa, gone before the court several times, about whether or not a media exemption is appropriate or the courts have looked and said, it is not necessarily a controversial topic, even with all of these other disagreements in the 54 decisions. -- is toaving a robust ensure there is an ability to have these views. concerned about this if we were talking 20 or 30 years ago. with the growth of the internet, with organizations like citizens united now having the immediate not think thatdo
is necessarily where the problem lies. i want a robust debate. i want more in the system. it is not about getting money out of politics. getting more out of money. it is saying, how to we take a system in which there are very few players, far less than 1% of all americans get $200 or more. it is something like .05% tier that is pathetic and it is dangerous for democracy. what we really need are changes that will have the ability to energize more people and give incentives to both the candidates and individuals who want to participate and get money to those involved. when you look at the election and see a billionaire running, you see someone like hillary clinton, who has huge amounts of money and super p,